So...you agree with me?Nope. I don't agree with a lot of the rules put up. I live with them though. I just wait for the homegame where I can play the whatever o' what I want to play. I can always agree that you shouldn't be disruptive and obnoxious and ruin peoples fun though, in particular in a public setting. However, that doesn't mean I think banning things wholesale is the best way to handle things, especially if you hunt for them.
Still kind of sounds like you're agreeing with me.
|
I believe the difference is that you're not actually ingesting the blood for blood biography, it just writes on the wall.
I do think the OP has a point: they would like to do the evil creepy stuff that's only as evil as the evil creepy stuff the other players are doing (looking at YOU cheliax!)
Personally, I feel he makes a good argument for restrictions on the OTHER stuff.
|
]
Personally, I feel he makes a good argument for restrictions on the OTHER stuff.
I like that the other stuff is there. Its the pathfinder society: they're adventurer archeologists, not the harpers, not the crusaders. They're after stuff and information. Doing that AND being good then because a choice for you, a choice for your character, and actually means a lot more if you're compelled to be heroic by the nature of the campaign.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's not what I mean, BNW. I was merely pointing out that the argument given is:
1. PFS does not want to include evil (distasteful) stuff.
2. X seems evil to me.
3. PFS includes X.
It seems reasonable that the conclusion could be
C1. PFS should consider reigning in X.
instead of
C2. PFS should also include Y, which other people find evil (distasteful).
That's not what I mean, BNW. I was merely pointing out that the argument given is:
1. PFS does not want to include evil (distasteful) stuff.
2. X seems evil to me.
3. PFS includes X.It seems reasonable that the conclusion could be
C1. PFS should consider reigning in X.
instead of
C2. PFS should also include Y, which other people find evil (distasteful).
The problem with that idealism is that it eventually leads to everything being banned. Even now we have things that aren't inherently distasteful or evil banned for being so. If you actually banned everything someone could perceive as evil eventually you ban everything.
Categorical Imperative I think is the logic's name, and it tends to fails itself unfortunately.
Well, Mr. Brock has made his appearance, heard my case, and (as far as I can tell) seems unmoved by my argument. My hope was to play a necromancer/bloodmage (NOT bloatmage, I find them silly), and play the character I outlined on Pogrist the Great's profile- an arcane researcher without moral compunctions on his "science", yet tactful enough to perform in society (Society?). I don't want to play an evil character, nor ban anything else. If the gods of Golarion do not favor me and remain silent on this issue, what choice have I but concede and go the way of those banned before me? [/melodrama] lol
But seriously, thanks for taking the time to hear me out.
|
|
That's not what I mean, BNW. I was merely pointing out that the argument given is:
1. PFS does not want to include evil (distasteful) stuff.
2. X seems evil to me.
3. PFS includes X.It seems reasonable that the conclusion could be
C1. PFS should consider reigning in X.
instead of
C2. PFS should also include Y, which other people find evil (distasteful).
The problem with that idealism is that it eventually leads to everything being banned. Even now we have things that aren't inherently distasteful or evil banned for being so. If you actually banned everything someone could perceive as evil eventually you ban everything.
Categorical Imperative I think is the logic's name, and it tends to fails itself unfortunately.
Do you understand that I am not arguing for restricting anything? I am trying to point out that the OP's argument is better suited to restricting other things, than it is to allowing what he wants.
"Some people think doing X is bad and I can do that anyway; so I should also be allowed to do Y, regardless of how many people find it bad as well."
It is a very weak argument.
All I am trying to suggest is find a stronger argument for allowing bad thing Y other than appealing to bad thing X.
Mike has overturned banned material when the argument was compelling and included a reason why overturning the material would improve the game (c.f. Magical Knack). I do not know of any case where he has overturned banned material when the argument was solely: "X is just as bad for the game as Y and it is allowed, so Y should also be allowed."
That is all.
|
Well, Mr. Brock has made his appearance, heard my case, and (as far as I can tell) seems unmoved by my argument. My hope was to play a necromancer/bloodmage (NOT bloatmage, I find them silly), and play the character I outlined on Pogrist the Great's profile- an arcane researcher without moral compunctions on his "science", yet tactful enough to perform in society (Society?). I don't want to play an evil character, nor ban anything else. If the gods of Golarion do not favor me and remain silent on this issue, what choice have I but concede and go the way of those banned before me? [/melodrama] lol
But seriously, thanks for taking the time to hear me out.
While I am in the camp of banning blood transcription is silly camp, how does not having access to that prevent your concept?!? It's ONE FREAKING SPELL.
While I am in the camp of banning blood transcription is silly camp, how does not having access to that prevent your concept?!? It's ONE FREAKING SPELL.
Because I can no longer drink the blood of my enemies in a tea and act like a high society character while gaining power in the process. Its all part of the image of gaining power while being composed and regal. Now I'm stuck with just regular tea and less of a dark pact or vampire feeling, vampirism being able to help create the image. I'm sure there are a number of other things, but ideas between people vary. I've never thought of using it in a disgusting manner myself.
Its also nifty for cheapening the price of extra spells if your a wizard/magus/witch who went into a PRC, but I believe you can nab spell books in a number of ways now to cheapen the price. If I remember correctly it used to be you couldn't borrow spell books off npcs, but I don't remember if that was misinformation or not.
|
|
While I am in the camp of banning blood transcription is silly camp, how does not having access to that prevent your concept?!? It's ONE FREAKING SPELL.Because I can no longer drink the blood of my enemies in a tea and act like a high society character while gaining power in the process. Its all part of the image of gaining power while being composed and regal. Now I'm stuck with just regular tea and less of a dark pact or vampire feeling, vampirism being able to help create the image. I'm sure there are a number of other things, but ideas between people vary. I've never thought of using it in a disgusting manner myself.
NOTHING is preventing your character from doing that NOW. You just can't use blood transcription...but flavor text, you can do that all you want.
NOTHING is preventing your character from doing that NOW. You just can't use blood transcription...but flavor text, you can do that all you want.
Not much is preventing me from vivisecting or devouring people either. In fact I do the first often enough if I play a martial character, yes we not allowed. Its an awkward thing. I mean, I can save their blood, but that's sort of silly if I have no reason beyond just... drinking blood. That's just creepy.
|
|
NOTHING is preventing your character from doing that NOW. You just can't use blood transcription...but flavor text, you can do that all you want.Not much is preventing me from vivisecting or devouring people either. In fact I do the first often enough if I play a martial character, yes we not allowed. Its an awkward thing. I mean, I can save their blood, but that's sort of silly if I have no reason beyond just... drinking blood. That's just creepy.
If that is what your character concept is...then it's fine. If you NEED the mechanical advantage, then your going about this argument all wrong.
If that is what your character concept is...then it's fine. If you NEED the mechanical advantage, then your going about this argument all wrong.
If you don't need mechanical advantages, you should really just play a commoner and prove it to everyone.
Mechanics help breath life into what your doing. They can also give you inspiration or a reason to do something. As I said, drinking tea for power is interesting, drinking blood because its blood is a little creepy.
Little off topic now though.
|
|
If that is what your character concept is...then it's fine. If you NEED the mechanical advantage, then your going about this argument all wrong.If you don't need mechanical advantages, you should really just play a commoner and prove it to everyone.
Mechanics help breath life into what your doing. They can also give you inspiration or a reason to do something. As I said, drinking tea for power is interesting, drinking blood because its blood is a little creepy.
Little off topic now though.
NO...absolutely NOT. Mechanics can indeed help with fluff and roleplaying true...but you don't NEED it. Especially for something as minor as blood transcription. So yeah, the concept works JUST fine without the spell. The spell would be NICE...but completely un-needed for the concept. And to say play a commoner is a bit of a strawman.
|
You can still play a Bloatmage. Join us. We generate huge amounts of blood when we need it, my character does drink blood if he can get his hands on it (and it fits the level 10 power of the prestige class to do so) and its pretty.. freaky. Im a little disappointed about the removal of Blood Transcription but It would never be enough to dissuade me from playing as a Blood drinking Wizard type character/ or cleric type.
Besides tea implies that there is actual.. tea in the blood. Which would probably not be usable with the spell anyway as it requires just blood. If I was the dm Id actually would say the use of the spell fails because you have contaminated the blood with a foreign substance.
Ive also just noticed that the spell is range touch, so this could be used by the caster to 'gift' a spell to a different caster?
School divination [evil]; Level alchemist 2, magus 2, wizard 2, witch 2
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S
Range touch
Target one dead spellcaster
Duration 24 hours
Saving Throw none; Spell Resistance no
By consuming 1 pint of blood from a spellcaster killed within the last 24 hours, you can attempt to learn a spell that spellcaster knew. Select one spell available to the dead spellcaster (this must be a spell on your spell list); you gain the knowledge of this spell for 24 hours. During this time, you may write it down (or teach it to your familiar, if you are a witch) using the normal rules for copying a spell from another source. Once you have learned it, you may prepare the spell normally.
|
I have two characters, one retired one active.
The first is a Bone Oracle who became a bone oracle because Zyphus saw her at the Opera and liked her.....and even brought back her dead brother as a zombie to help her, and then caused twelve people to suffer sudden accidental deaths so that she could be a countess.
This was Zyphus' way of saying he loved her.
The character was creepy and cool, and other then animating some corpses to protect her fellow pathfinders, never acted in an evil way and made a point of protecting innocents.
I've made an Alchemist (half orc) who practices 'Orcish Barbaque', running a resturaunt in Absolan (i.e. takes day job roles) when not adventuring. He has a code which tells him "never eat those you have conversations with, because it's breach of hospitality and therefore bad manners." While I hint that he may have eaten various things in the past, he wishes to be a respectable member of society, marry off his two sisters, etc. So he behaves in a lawful manner.
I know another player who also played a bone oracle. His character killed a bunch of patrons in a bar using mass cause moderate wounds and then animated the corpses. Had I been the GM I'd have booted him from the game for playing an evil character right then and there.
The thing is if you want to come up with creepy fluff, you'll come up with creepy fluff and it will be played. That in itself does not make the character evil. If someone plays an evil character and call them neutral, enough GM's will go along and let it slide. It doesn't matter they have a 'dark' archetype or not.
So banning the archetypes merely because they have creepy powers won't effect if people play evil characters or not. Therefore banning archetypes merely because they have a 'dark' is besides the point.
Therefore, only those archetypes that are either unbalanced or have an evil component built in, like eating corpses or assasinating people should be banned.
Hope that helps.
Developer
|
Ive also just noticed that the spell is range touch, so this could be used by the caster to 'gift' a spell to a different caster?
...
Range touch
Target one dead spellcaster
I think that would only work if you wanted to give such a spell to a dead spellcaster. The range touch is just saying that you can't siphon blood from medium range as part of the spell.
|
|
You can still play a Bloatmage. Join us. We generate huge amounts of blood when we need it, my character does drink blood if he can get his hands on it (and it fits the level 10 power of the prestige class to do so) and its pretty.. freaky. Im a little disappointed about the removal of Blood Transcription but It would never be enough to dissuade me from playing as a Blood drinking Wizard type character/ or cleric type.
Besides tea implies that there is actual.. tea in the blood. Which would probably not be usable with the spell anyway as it requires just blood. If I was the dm Id actually would say the use of the spell fails because you have contaminated the blood with a foreign substance.
Ive also just noticed that the spell is range touch, so this could be used by the caster to 'gift' a spell to a different caster?
School divination [evil]; Level alchemist 2, magus 2, wizard 2, witch 2
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S
Range touch
Target one dead spellcaster
Duration 24 hours
Saving Throw none; Spell Resistance no
By consuming 1 pint of blood from a spellcaster killed within the last 24 hours, you can attempt to learn a spell that spellcaster knew. Select one spell available to the dead spellcaster (this must be a spell on your spell list); you gain the knowledge of this spell for 24 hours. During this time, you may write it down (or teach it to your familiar, if you are a witch) using the normal rules for copying a spell from another source. Once you have learned it, you may prepare the spell normally.
No...you can't use this to teach other people. Look at the target of said range touch.
edit: Damn it...ninja'd by john.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
I don't see that eating flesh or drinking blood meets the definition for evil established by the game. I wouldn't mind seeing an explanation as to why this was arbitrarily defined as evil enough to be banned, but other established evils are still fair game.
If blood transcription is verboten, why not animate dead? Summon Monster and Planar Ally/Binding used to summon evil creatures? The Diablolist prestige class? The spells infernal healing, death knell, enervation, magic jar, etc.? Why are we even allowed to play Neutral characters when requiring Good characters would simplify so many gray areas?
Please note that I'm not asking these things to be banned. I'm simply requesting that the idea of "cannibalism" and the specific mechanics of blood transcription be put into perspective. If you want them classified as evil acts, that's fine. Instruct us to warn players and to make the appropriate notations on chronicle sheets. Whatever happened to "it's not the spell, it's how it's used" that was used to justify keeping animate dead and infernal healing as legal options?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hail, friends. My name is Pogrist the Great, necromancer in service and study of Osirion. It has come to my attention that many of the uninitiated masses object to the use of necromancy and blood magic, seeing it as evil. This would come as no surprise, were we not living in an advanced age. I ask that we necromancers receive the same rights and immunities as the Chelaxians do.
Father Sigmar Ericson of the Holy Church of Pharasma, looks up. "I'm game at letting you do whatever you like, if I and some Paladin friends of mine are allowed to hunt you all down and burn you at the stake, corpse lover."
(The IC response would be the one you should expect, if PFS allows what you are asking. Since you asked IC, I figured I'd answer in turn, so that you'd know it wasn't personal but rather a Role Playing objection. There's a role-playing limit to what the Church of Pharasma, Iomedae and Sarenrae, would tolerate and this could very well, be that unspoken line in the sand, where a Holy Crusade could be called on the Pathfinder Society and Absalom, were such heresy to be openly tolerated or condoned.
One of the things that players sometimes don't take into consideration, is that some of the reasons that PFS is allowed to go where it wills, is because the 'good' churches don't object to it and trust me, grave 'redistribution of wealth' is already frowned upon by most of these churches. There has to be a logical progression of why certain acts would be tolerable to the non-EVIL societies of the Inner Sea. They learned to tolerate Cheliax because Asmodeus is Lawful and helped to seal the Rough Beast. Necromancy and Blood Magic of the sort you are proposing, ehh, I'm not sure that would be tolerated. That's where you actually would find Role-Playing problems with about half of the nations in the Inner Sea.)
|
Let's talk in world culturaly here for a moment. Chelaxian diabolism is, if not accepted, tolerated by most people and the society as a whole. This is played up a lot I feel, even giving Chelaxian's the option to gain an imp for a misson as a prestige award.
We also have Osirion as a major faction in the society. I don't know as much about osirion, so correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't raising the dead a culturally accepted thing there? They have undead tomb guardians, and the faction has a boon that lets you be raised from the dead as a risen guard. It seems however like many people accept the diabolism much more readily than the necromancy, even though both are accepted in society play when used responsibly, which just seems unfair to me. It also seems like blood rituals go hand in hand with both of these things, from a real world historical standpoint at least.
Just a two cent arguement. I should stop posting when I'm so tired.
|
While I am in the camp of banning blood transcription is silly camp, how does not having access to that prevent your concept?!? It's ONE FREAKING SPELL.
It's more the principle of "this is evil, while that glaring evil is not", leading one to wonder when "that" will be banned as well. Our laws work on established precedents, and when the necromancers and Chelaxians are themselves "put to the question", The Deciemverate vs. Blood Trasnscription" being on the books is damning.
It's on these precedents (which Cheliax sets pretty far out) that makes the blood ban seem uneven.
Mr. Lemure, Mr. Mayhew, Mr. Sin: You gentlemen take my point near to exactly.
Mr. Saxon: I understand emphatically your friends objection to the necromantic arts. It is clear that their flagrant and irresponsible use, coupled with the general lack of understanding as to how they work amongst the uninitiated, has driven the "witch hunt" thus far. I doubt very seriously your paladin friends would begrudge me the reanimation of my faithful hound, should he fall, or temporarily controlling wild undead to turn against their own kind, or any other use of necromancy that saves the party's skin. I have learned that when traveling, not only with well armed paladins of deities such as yours, but just amongst the uninitiated of any faith, discretion saves lives- MY OWN!*
Mr. Pittard: While I cannot commit myself at this time to the bloatmage college, as the drawbacks of corpulence and the uncontrolled rage outweigh the benefits for me, I nonetheless urge you beware this ruling, as it is only a matter of time before they come to your door! (I am currently studying the ancient styles of the Blood Magus of Faerun and the Maho-Tsukai of Rokugan, and hope to find a compatible alternative. This is why I have such interest in your field of study!).
|
|
The idea of evil I believe mostly stems from "What would a paladin player do?"
If your a paladin and the necromancer in the group decides to go around raiseing dead, or the inquisitor of pharasma sees this, they would have to break character more than likely to allow it. Because of the No PvP rules.
We already know necromancers walk a thin line in PFS. I personally don't believe they should be allowed, but I am one opinion. Necromancers hide behind the rules. If a necromancer plays at a table with a cleric, and inquisitor of Pharasma, and an Paladin of Iomedea, he is forcing their characters to ignore the fact of his necromancy so he can play. Not to mention that Golarion has a stigma against Necromancy to begin with, culturally. Osirion is, I believe one of the few areas necromancers may be welcome. The other being Nex, but Nex is horribly evil and constantly being raided by followers of Pharasma.
While Cheliax is a good parallel of "Why?" keep in mind Cheliax is not run by devils, but uses devils. Cheliax is evil but they are Lawful. Just because someone summons a devil to do their bidding does not make them any more evil, than summoning an archon to do their bidding makes them good. It is all in the actions. Cheliax is huge, the only reason they could be in PFS is because they control so much land and wealth.
|
|
Mr. Saxon: I understand emphatically your friends objection to the necromantic arts. It is clear that their flagrant and irresponsible use, coupled with the general lack of understanding as to how they work amongst the uninitiated, has driven the "witch hunt" thus far. I doubt very seriously your paladin friends would begrudge me the reanimation of my faithful hound, should he fall, or temporarily controlling wild undead to turn against their own kind, or any other use of necromancy that saves the party's skin. I have learned that when traveling, not only with well armed paladins of deities such as yours, but just amongst the uninitiated of any faith, discretion saves lives- MY OWN!*
IC: The Hierophant of Pharamsma, turns a cold glare at you: "You want to drink of the blood of the slain so that you may absorb their knowledge and thus interfere with their soul, leech. I will see you roast, defiler. I will do the last rights myself, so that you may not be brought back to life and go directly to judgement before my Mistress. And I assure you, there is no mercy from my goddess for your ilk."
OOC: No objection as far as mechanics. My lvl. 10 Archbishop of Pharasma, well, you heard him. And I don't want to play a Priest of Pharasma if I have to tolerate that level of necromancy. Because then it spoils my fun as a player and it would do the same for Paladin players. So, while I would not object in a homebrew game, in PFS I vote no based on the Role-Playing aspects of Golarion and Absalom in particular.
P.S. Its Geb not Nex that is a mecca of the undead hordes. And that kingdom is under strict quarantine, only to be entered by Holy Crusaders who are there to purge the undead host.
|
|
The idea of evil I believe mostly stems from "What would a paladin player do?"
If your a paladin and the necromancer in the group decides to go around raiseing dead, or the inquisitor of pharasma sees this, they would have to break character more than likely to allow it. Because of the No PvP rules.
I've seen paladins and other holy types be much more disruptive than necromancers. I mean how many times have parties been unable to bluff or use stealth or guile because of paladins and other similar characters?
"Sorry guys, but there will be no pretending today. I'm a paladin and there is a reason that my god made the sword fit my hand so well!"
I've also seen several players play 7 int and wisdom paladins just so that they are so oblivious that they can play well with others.
While Cheliax is a good parallel of "Why?" keep in mind Cheliax is not run by devils, but uses devils. Cheliax is evil but they are Lawful. Just because someone summons a devil to do their bidding does not make them any more evil, than summoning an archon to do their bidding makes them good. It is all in the actions. Cheliax is huge, the only reason they could be in PFS is because they control so much land and wealth.
Not so:
...
When you use a calling spell to call an air, chaotic, earth, evil, fire, good, lawful, or water creature, it is a spell of that type.
Just posted the above on the Diabolist petition, and it's true of summoning spells as well. Although I agree that "it's all in the actions", this supports my original point as well as yours.
Also, Mr. Saxon, if Pogrist ever found himself in party with your heirophant or the like, he'd obviously not animate every corpse in sight, maybe even claiming to be a conjurer to avoid complication. What you don't know/see/accept can't get me killed, lol.
Case in point: Pogrist has a dog named Dargon (who is currently alive and well, hopefully for some time). Our PFS quest yesterday took us into goblin territory, actually accompanying goblins. Making a quick knowledge check, Pogrist quickly reasoned that it would be best to leave doggie at home for this one (as goblin's love for dogs and horses is well known). Do you not think similar concession could be made for a paladin or priest? Unless you're traveling with a cabal of necromancers, diabolists, and bloodmages, of course...mwahaha....
|
|
Also, Mr. Saxon, if Pogrist ever found himself in party with your heirophant or the like, he'd obviously not animate every corpse in sight, maybe even claiming to be a conjurer to avoid complication. What you don't know/see/accept can't get me killed, lol.
OOC: Your argument is noted and his PC might very well tread lightly. What you can't promise me are that the other 10,000 players who play these sorts of Necromancers will do the same. Which means at that point our PCs have to go into PVP mode. So for the sake of game progression, PFS should not change its rules on this because then it makes all the Priests of Pharasma, Iomedae and Sarenrae, unplayable.
So, while Pgrist might not do it and I totally believe he wouldn't, its the players that come after him, that would ruin the Role-Playing experience, for future players of those 3 deities.
Also noted, and the rules governing Society members working together requires any and all necromancers/bloodmages/bloatmages to be at least temporarily respectful of priests/paladins/heirophant of such deties, and vice versa. A character flagrantly performing blasphemous acts is in just as much violation of Society rules as one putting another berating another for acting within their own alignment/class/religion (which is the bottom line, I think). Play nice together, or don't play, right? I think this should be a GM thing: if I really want to play X and you Y, both being legal, as long as we agree to maintain group cohesion above personal creed, what's the problem?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A priest, a paladin or an inquisitor, is his 'personal creed.' If I see a necro raising dead pets to ride in my game and that necro dies, he's not getting a raise dead or a heal from my priest. If I were to be playing a general cleric without 'a creed' it would be a different matter. But since I have to choose a deity, I have to RP that deity's ethos.
I wouldn't go into PVP mode since I respect my GM and fellow players but there's only so far I could go.
^ That seems fair, nor would I reanimate your corpse
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lot of hate for undead/blood and lot of leeway for devils, demons ad some such from those same above-mentioned priests of Iomedae and Sarenrae.
Not to mention rubbing elbows with Neutral clerics of Evil deities such as Rovagug, Lamashtu or Urgathoa.
This does not makes much sense to me :-(
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lot of hate for undead/blood and lot of leeway for devils, demons ad some such from those same above-mentioned priests of Iomedae and Sarenrae.
Not to mention rubbing elbows with Neutral clerics of Evil deities such as Rovagug, Lamashtu or Urgathoa.
This does not makes much sense to me :-(
Then perhaps it's time to reevaluate the appropriateness of some of those concepts for PFS play. ;)
Perhaps this is a good way to think of it:
Blood-drinking/cannibalism is evil in this campaign; "barely-legal", pseudo-evil clerics as well as fiend-familiar-using wizards are perhaps similarly unsavory... BUT, banning the latter would wreck huge swaths of concepts while banning the former makes a much smaller impact. Maybe that's where the "line" is?
|
|
You're not allowed benefit from canabalism. The EndI remember back in college when we debated philosophy that I could not find anything intrinsically evil about cannibalism.
Could it be unhealthy? Sure. But so are donuts.
Unsanitary? If you weren't careful.
Taboo? Only to some cultures.
Unnatural? Absolutely not.
Disrespectful? Only if the deceased viewed it as so.
Basically, when it came down to it, the Sahuagin had it right all along. "Meat is meat". Cannibalism is no more evil than eating a cheeseburger.
Now, the act of murder? That's a different argument.
To cite (from memory, so it is not verbatim) Robert Heinlein: "With the price of meat, there is a lot of people to which I wouldn't turn my back if cannibalism wasn't a taboo."
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Jiggy, are you really making the argument that some evils are okay because "everybody does it"? That's too funny.
Haha, not exactly, though I see what you mean. :)
No, "everybody does it" would be an in-character justification. What I'm pondering is that maybe in-character X, Y and Z are evil; as such, they would (ooc) be banned, but banning Y and Z would squash [insert arbitrary number here] concepts, so the gracious decision is made (ooc) to not ban Y and Z.
Maybe. I dunno. Just throwing ideas around.
EDIT: Sort of like how PFS normally doesn't change how the Core Rules work, but an exception is made in order to give wizards Spell Focus (replacing Scribe Scroll) rather than ban the entire class.
I say leave X also, because the continued allowance of Y and Z under the premise given (being evil, icky, whatever) undermines said premise entirely.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I say leave X also, because the continued allowance of Y and Z under the premise given (being evil, icky, whatever) undermines said premise entirely.
So if I'm understanding you correctly...
Premise 1: X, Y and Z are all evil/unsavory/what have you.
Premise 2: X is banned in accordance with Premise 1.
Premise 3: Y and Z are legal in spite of Premise 1.
Premise 4: The disconnect between three things having different statuses of legality despite the same qualities is undesirable.
Conclusion: Legalize X so that all three can violate Premise 1 together.
That's an interesting logic chain.
Alternatively, it means X isn't so bad because apparently Y and Z are just fine.
Wish there was a way just to kindly stop 'unsavory' concepts rather than banning mechanics. The guy who devours a recently killed corpse, refuses to clean up, and shows off a torn off limb to his friends offering to share is probably off. The one that kindly says he's going to cast blood transcription after the adventure is probably not bothering anyone.
Personally I find people go for concepts and banning mechanics doesn't always stop them. For instance, there was a guy at the local store who had a raging barbarian who ate people owned then. Kindly asking him to stop got a good response and he'd cut down on the antics. Raging or throwing books at him usually just made things worse.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Wish there was a way just to kindly stop 'unsavory' concepts rather than banning mechanics. The guy who devours a recently killed corpse, refuses to clean up, and shows off a torn off limb to his friends offering to share is probably off. The one that kindly says he's going to cast blood transcription after the adventure is probably not bothering anyone.
You make it sound like the objection is to making a mess. It's not. It's to drinking a person's blood. No matter how polite you are about it or how little you roleplay it, you're still having your character drink a pint of a person's blood.
You actually think that dining etiquette makes a difference regarding the acceptability of drinking a person's blood?
You actually think that dining etiquette makes a difference regarding the acceptability of drinking a person's blood?
Erm... yes? Doesn't apply with everything you do mind you, but the way you perform or act does happen to have an effect on public opinion.
|
|
I say leave X also, because the continued allowance of Y and Z under the premise given (being evil, icky, whatever) undermines said premise entirely.So if I'm understanding you correctly...
Premise 1: X, Y and Z are all evil/unsavory/what have you.
Premise 2: X is banned in accordance with Premise 1.
Premise 3: Y and Z are legal in spite of Premise 1.
Premise 4: The disconnect between three things having different statuses of legality despite the same qualities is undesirable.
Conclusion: Legalize X so that all three can violate Premise 1 together.That's an interesting logic chain.
Its at least consistent.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
You actually think that dining etiquette makes a difference regarding the acceptability of drinking a person's blood?Erm... yes? Doesn't apply with everything you do mind you, but the way you perform or act does happen to have an effect on public opinion.
And you believe that drinking people's blood is among the things for which manners make the difference, rather than being among the things that are still undesirable even when done politely?
And you believe that drinking people's blood is among the things for which manners make the difference, rather than being among the things that are still undesirable even when done politely?You actually think that dining etiquette makes a difference regarding the acceptability of drinking a person's blood?Erm... yes? Doesn't apply with everything you do mind you, but the way you perform or act does happen to have an effect on public opinion.
Yeah, pretty much. I think there's a difference between ripping someones arm off and letting them bleed into your mouth lapping it up and drinking some collected blood in your spare time at home out of a cup. The first guy is a bit of an exhibitionist if you ask me.
Similarly, the guy who simply says "I cast blood transcription" is different than the one who says he violently rips apart and eats a corpse at the table, and both of those guys are different than the one who wants to describe it in detail just to see everyone's faces with no regard to their feelings.
I also think that compared to eating someone's soul and enjoying their demise is a lot worse than drinking someone's blood like a quick snack as part of a spell, though no one asked me.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Yeah, pretty much. I think there's a difference between ripping someones arm off and letting them bleed into your mouth lapping it up and drinking some collected blood in your spare time at home out of a cup. The first guy is a bit of an exhibitionist if you ask me.And you believe that drinking people's blood is among the things for which manners make the difference, rather than being among the things that are still undesirable even when done politely?You actually think that dining etiquette makes a difference regarding the acceptability of drinking a person's blood?Erm... yes? Doesn't apply with everything you do mind you, but the way you perform or act does happen to have an effect on public opinion.
Just because there's a difference between them doesn't mean one of them has to end up in the "acceptable" category. It is possible for two bad things to be very different but still both be bad.
There's a difference between laughing maniacally while shredding someone with a chainsaw and killing someone with a painless drug in their sleep, but that difference has no bearing on whether or not it was wrong. They can both be undesirable even if they're different.
I also think that compared to eating someone's soul
To my knowledge, the only instance of soul-eating in PFS instantly shifts your alignment one step toward evil. Did I miss something?
|
|
Lot of hate for undead/blood and lot of leeway for devils, demons ad some such from those same above-mentioned priests of Iomedae and Sarenrae.
Not to mention rubbing elbows with Neutral clerics of Evil deities such as Rovagug, Lamashtu or Urgathoa.
This does not makes much sense to me :-(
I'll be honest my Pharasman Cleric had a worry for a while, given one of the players in the area of her level was a Necromancer who enjoyed raising' allies' from the dead. For her that is a NASTY BAD thing. The Goddess doesn't APPROVE.
My take was she wasn't going to exclude them from positive channels if they were fighting other undead and if needed WOULD exclude them from negative channelling (she's a versatile channeller) if she was hurting humans.)It would be very clear that she DID NOT APPROVE. Of course being a lady of Taldane Nobility..one didn't comment on such things. You simply acted. Luckily the player dropped out, though I miss his other PCs, due to real life.